Matter part II

Matter is first of all the ground or foundation of being in motion. It is that which is somehow present at both the terms of change, and throughout the change itself. While matter is the ultimate ground of change, it is not all that change requires as passive.

Motion is essentially going from this to that, regardless of whether the mobile happened to be at rest in the this or the that. A mobile is always between two terms and never at a term. Some part of the mobile might reach the term before the whole does, but we can never have the whole at the term and also in motion. It follows from this that motion requires not only matter, but extension- for if we deny all parts to some mobile, then at any point in its motion it would be at that term as a whole. The whole mobile, in other words, would be both at rest and at motion at one and the same time and in the same respect.

Another way to see the argument is that a term is a limit between two states, and a limit as such is common to the two :this is where one ends and another begins. But any partless thing would have to be at that limit as a whole, and so the whole thing would be at once in a contradictory states. The whole thing would be in motion and not.  

While matter is the foundation of motion, in order to be actually in motion matter must rise to the concrete existence of extended quantity. While matter is not precisely the same thing as extension, wherever there is matter, there must be extension, and vice versa.

%d bloggers like this: